<*"  jK  yC-NRLF 

TC 


$B  llb  317 


A  Diversion  Scheme  to 

PREVENT   OVERFLOWS    OF 
THE  MISSISSIPPI 

And  to  Establish 

A  Navigable  Waterway 

From 

Mobile  Bay 

To  The 

Ohio  River 


BY  E.  N.  LOWE, 
O 

State  Geologist  of  Mississippi 


EXCHANGE 


~1 


A  Diversion  Scheme  to 


PREVENT    OVERFLOWS    OF 
THE  MISSISSIPPI 

And  to  Establish 

A  Navigable  Waterway 

• 

From 

Mobile  Bay 

To  The 


BYE:-N.LOWE, 

State  Geologist  of  Mississippi. 


No  problem  of  internal  Improvement  has  for  some  time  past  com 
manded  a  larger  share  of  the  attention  of  a  very  large  proportion 
of  the  people  of  the  United  States  than  that  of  prevention  of  over- 
flows of  the  Mississippi  River  and  improvement  of  our  internal 
waterways.  Looked  at  from  every  point  of  view  the  control  of  the 
Mississippi  during  flood  seasons  looms  up  as  a  national  problem  of 
immense  importance.  That  the  revenues  of  the  national  government 
should  be,  year  after  year,  lavishly  expended  to  reclaim  the  desert 
areas  of  the  West  where  no  inhabitant  save  the  prairie  dog,  the  rat- 
tlesnake, and  the  coyote  dwells,  or  can  dwell,  until  the  land  is  re- 
claimed, while  vast  areas  of  the  richest  soils  on  earth — areas  much 
larger  than  all  the  desert  lands  that  can  be  reclaimed,  and  where 
human  beings,  loyal  and  devoted  citizens  of  these  United  States, 
now  have  their  homes  and  property,  should  be  subject  to  overflow, 
with  devastation,  loss  of  property  and  danger  to  life,  because  of  the 
neglect  of  the  national  government  to  control  the  nation's  water,  is 
a  crying  national  disgrace.  Surely  the  deserts  can  wait  until  the 
really  vital  problems  of  the  nation  are  solved.  Is  the  nation  seeking 
homes  for  its  increasing  population?  Here  in  the  flood  plain  of  the 
Mississippi  are  the  richest  lands  within  our  borders,  with  areas 
broad  enough  to  accommodate  the  teeming  population  of  the  whole 
country  for  a  century  to  come.  IK  the  call  of  humanity,  to  say 
nothing  of  national  duty,  that  would  prompt  the  nation  to  protect  its 
people  against  disaster,  without  force?  Who  doubts  for  a  moment 
that  an  invasion  by  a  foreign  foe  of  any  part  of  our  territory  would 
promptly  bring  to  that  section  the  protection  of  the  army  and  navy 
of  the  nation?  Yet,  here  is  a  foe  more  inexorable  and  merciless 
than  any  human  adversary,  and  how  inadequate  the  national  aid  to 
prevent  his  approach!  Surely  the  nation's  policies  need  radical  re- 
vision, that  this  neglect  of  plain  duty  may  not  continue. 

In  this  day  of  immense  commercial  development  railroads  are 
indispensable  to  this  country.  Yet,  astute  statesmen  foresee  the 
time  not  far  distant  when,  with  the  completion  of  the  Isthmian  Ca- 
rial,  the  railroads  will  be  unable  to  carry  to  our  southern  seaboard 
and  bring  therefrom  the  commerce  of  the  great  Mississippi  valley, 
and  they  are  casting  about  to  devise  ways  of  improving  our  inland 
waterways  as  a  means  of  supplementing  the  railroads  that  lead  to 
ihe  Gulf  ports,  and  at  the  same  time  to  maintain  wholesome  com- 
petition with  them.  That  the  Mississippi  will,  of  course,  always  be 
the  chief  north  and  south  inland  waterway  there  can  be  no  doubt, 
but  that  there  may  be  others  seems  not  to  have  commanded  other 
than  local  interest.  One  other,  at  least,  seems  quite  possible,  as 
will  be  shown  in  the  course  of  this  paper. 


384767 


DIVERSION  OF  THE  TENNESSEE  RIVER. 

The  safest,  most  natural  and  most  effective  method  of  controll- 
ing the  Mississippi  in  flood  seasons  is  by  diversion  of  the  flood  wa- 
ters of  some  of  its  large  tributaries  before  they  reach  the  Mississippi 
Leveeing  as  a  sole  means  of  protection  against  overflow  is,  has  al- 
ways been,  and  always  will  be,  in  my  opinion,  an  uncertain  and 
dangerous  expedient.  To  be  at  all  effective  it  will  be  very  expen- 
sive, and  must  be  almost  certainly  from  time  to  time,  punctuated 
with  great  disasters,  which  will  certainly  grow  greater  with  each 
recurrence,  because  of  the  greatly  increased  population  and  wealth 
in  the  danger  districts  with  the  passing  of  time. 

There  can  be  no  question  that  with  the  increase  of  population 
in  the  Mississippi  Valley  the  larger  part  of  the  remaining  forested 
areas  will  inevitably  be  reduced  to  open  lands  to  furnish  homes 
and  farms  for  the  people.  The  removal  of  the  forests  will  as  in- 
evitably cause  the  rapid  run-off  of  rain  falling  upon  these  areas,  and 
the  tendency  to  flooding  the  streams  will  increase.  Since  at  the 
present  time  the  Mississippi  River  is  the  receptacle  of  all  these 
waters,  in  my  opinion,  our  children  and  grandchildren  will  experience 
greater  danger  from  the  Mississippi  than  we  encounter  today.  With 
government  aid,  great  systems  of  levees  may  be  built  that  may 
vdthstand  the  floods  for  many  years,  but  this  will  only  accentuate 
the  ultimate  danger;  for,  strengthened  in  confidence  as  to  their  se- 
curity, hundreds  of  thousands  of  home-seekers  will  build  homes, 
towns  and  cities  in  the  low  lands,  and  a  break  occurring  then  would 
entail  such  suffering  and  such  lossof  life  and  property  that  we  stand 
appalled  in  contemplation  of  the  possibility. 

Any  attempts  to  control  the  Mississippi  floods  by  reservoiring 
the  upper  waters  of  its  tributaries  would  be  wholly  impracticable,  as 
well  as  very  dangerous  in  the  dist  ricts  immediately  below  the  stor- 
age reservoirs.  To  be  at  all  adequate  immense  areas  must  be  cov- 
ered with  water,  the  lands  of  which  should  be  devoted  to  other  pur- 
poses in  support  of  our  growing  population.  To  attempt  to  with- 
draw such  areas  in  non-overflow  states  for  the  protection  of  lands 
in  overflow  states  would  precipiiate  such  opposition  as  to  negative 
any  efforts  in  that  direction,  and  result  in  no  action  being  taken. 
This  is  human  nature.  Tenacious  preservation  of  our  own  is  well 
developed  in  all  of  us  Americans,  in  our  brethren  who  live  toward 
the  headwaters  of  our  streams  no  less  than  among  us  who  live  far- 
ther south  on  the  great  river. 

In  view  of  the  above  consider  atioms,  only  one  plan  suggests  it- 
self as  being  adequate  to  meet  the  end,  one  that  would  bring  only 
benefits  and  no  disasters,  and  withal  a  most  natural  and  sane  me- 
thod to  control  the  situation.  This  plan  consists  in  diverting  from 


the  Mississippi  the  flood  waters  of  some  of  its  tributaries.  The  cen- 
tral idea  of  the  plan  is  perfectly  simple — can  be  understood  by  any- 
one— and  has  seemingly  escaped  serious  consideration  because  of 
an  apparent  impossibility  of  accomplishment.  But  it  is  not  only  pos- 
sible, but,  in  our  opinion,  can  be  done  more  cheaply,  more  quickly, 
and  with  greater  .benefits  to  the  \vhole  country,  with  hurt  to  no 
section,  than  by  any  other  method  that  has  so  far  been  suggested  or 
considered. 

Naturally,  the  question  arises:  "What  tributaries  can  be  so  di- 
verted?" It  appears  feasible  to  divert  the  flood  waters  of  the  Ten 
nessee  River,  and  it  is  probable  that  the  surplus  water  of  the  Red 
River  can  also  be  diverted,  both  large  affluents  of  the  Mississippi. 

In  the  extreme  northeast  corner  of  Mississippi,  Yellow  Creek 
ripes  in  southwestern  Tishomingo  County  and  flows  north  into  the 
Tennessee  River — a  disitance  of  nineteen  miles.  On  the  southern 
side  of  a  narrow  divide,  less  than  half  a  mile  from  the  source  of 
Yellow  Creek,  is  the  source  of  Mackey's  Creek,  the  headwaters  of 
the  Toniibigibee  River.  The  plan  sugested  contemplates  diverting 
the  Tennessee  River  through  Yellow  Creek  into  Mackey's  Creek, 
the  chief  headwaters  of  the  Tombigibee,  as  just  stated.  The  Red 
River  is  to  be  turned  through  one  of  its  western  tributaries  below 
Shreveport  into  the  upper  Sabine.  In  both  cases  a  narrow  divide 
can  be  cut  through  to  the  level  ofthe  larger  streams,  the  short  trib- 
utary lowered  so  as  to  reverse  its  flow,  and  the  large  stream  will 
find  its  way  by  a  much  shorter  and  steeper  channel  to  the  Gulf  of 
Mexico.  This  is  notably  the  case  with  the  Tennessee  River,  which 
from  the  mouth  of  Yellow  Creek  flows  almost  directly  north  across 
Tennessee  and  Kentucky  into  the  Ohio,  and  thence  its  waters  flow 
down  the  Ohio  to  the  Mississippi,  and  follow  its  long  and  tortuous 
course  to  the  Gulf;  whereas  by  diversion  into  the  Tombigbee  the 
floodwaters  of  the  Tennessee  would  reach  the  Gulf  by  a  direct  route, 
one-fourth  the  distance. 

Before  going  further  into  this  disicussion  we  should  try  to  ans- 
wer a  question  that  will  naturally  arise  here:  "Will  the  diversion 
of  the  floodwaters  at  this  point  materially  affect  the  flood  con- 
dition of  the  Misisssippi?"  I  regret  to  say  that  we  are  not  in  pos- 
session of  exact  figures  covering  this  point,  but  when  I  state  that 
the  Tennessee  at  this  point  is  600  yards  wide  and  in  flood  season 
rises  to  a  height  of  33  feet,  there  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  the 
diversion  of  this  much  water  will  affect  very  decidedly  the  flood 
stage  of  the  lower  Ohio  and  Mississippi. 

Can  the  Tennessee  be  diverted  to  the  Tomibigbee?  What  facts 
have  we  to  justify  the  belief? 

At  the  gate  entering  the  field  of  S.  A.  Bonds  at  the  mouth  of 


Yellow  Creek  is  a  bench  mark  of  the  government  survey  showing  an 
elevation  above  sea-level  of  390.2  feet,  the  B.  M.  being  22  feet 
above  low  water  at  the  junction  of  Yellow  Creek  with  the  Tennes- 
see River.  Other  government  elevation  marks  farther  up  the  creek 
show  that  at  least  two  different  parties  surveyed  along  the  Tennes 
see,  and  a  discrepancy  in  their  results  of  as  much  as  15  feet  was 
noted.  For  example,  on  the  hills  a'bove  the  creek  on  land  of  Mr. 
Bonds  were  two  B.  M.  at  the  same  point,  one  giving  447  and  the 
other  462  feet  elevatiton.  Mr.  Bonds,  who  was  living  here  when  both 
parties  made  their  surveys,  identified  the  mark  447  as  being  record- 
ed by  the  same  party  that  made  the  record  390.2  at  the  mouth  of  the 
creek.  This  is  mentioned  because,  while  only  one  party  seems  to  have 
left  a  record  at  the  creek's  mouth,  had  the  other  left  one  it  would 
probably  have  been  15  feet  higher,  and  so  have  reduced  the  estimat- 
ed fall  of  Yellow  Creek  by  that  much. 

The  elevation  at  the  Southern  Railroad  station  at  Burnsville, 
\vhioh.  is  15  miles  in  a  line  following  Yellow  Creek  bottom,  from  the 
Tennessee  River,  is  467  feet  (R.  R.  survey),  which  is  five  feet  high- 
er than  the  railroad  where  it  crosses  Yellow  Creek  one  mile  east, 
»t  which  point  the  railroad  track  is  six  feet  above  the  water  surface 
!n  Yellow  Creek,  so  that  here  the  surface  in  Yellow  Creek  is  456 
feet  above  sea-level  (supposing  there  is  no  disagreement  between 
the  railroad  and  government  surveys)  giving  a  fall  to  the  creek  of 
practically  six  feet  to  the  mile  between  the  mouth  and  the  cross- 
ing of  the  Southern  Railroad. 

The  Birmingham  branch  of  the  I.  C.  Railroad  crosses  Yellow 
Creek  at  a  point  four  miles  south  of  Burnsville;  at  this  crossing  the 
railroad  track  (railroad  survey)  is  478  feet  above  sea-level.  The 
track  is  six  feet  above  the  level  of  the  creek  surface,  making  the 
latter  472.  Hence,  between  the  railroad  points  of  crossing  (if  theii 
surveys  coincide)  the  fall  of  Yellov/  Creek  is  four  feet  to  the  mile. 

In  the  face  of  discrepancies  between  the  two  government  sur- 
veys and  the  possible  disagreement  between  the  government  and 
railroad  surveys,  we  have  consulted  another  line  of  evidence.  Back- 
water from  the  Tennessee  River,  when  it  reaches  the  33  foot  stage 
ai  the  mouth  of  Yellow  Creek,  reaches  up  to  a  point  in  Yellow 
Creek  Valley  which  in  a  straight  line  is  ten  miles  from  the  junc- 
tion of  the  streams.  This  fact  is  obtained  from  Mr.  J.  M.  Foote, 
Fii  intelligent  raftman  of  Burnsville,  who  has  floated  logs  on  Yel- 
low Creek  to  the  Tennessee  for  many  years.  He  also  states  that 
when  the  water  of  Yellow  Creek  rises  four  feet  against  the  dam  of 
the  water  mill  at  Burnsville  the  backwater  reaches  2  1-2  miles  up 
stream,  which  would  give  the  creek  a  fall  above  Burnsville  of  1.6 
feet  per  mile.  By  his  observations  the  fall  below  Burnsville  would 
be  three  feet  to  the  mile.  "Undoubtedly  the  fall  is  much  less  above 


Burnsville  and  for  some  distance  below  than  in  the  lower  part  of 
the  stream.  Of  course,  Mr.  Foote's  estimate  of  distance  might  not 
have  been  very  accurate,  and  so  would  modify  the  results.  These 
estimates  are  introduced  to  show  that  by  all  line®  of  evidence  which 
we  have  been  able  as  yet  to  consult  we  have  used  as  the  basis 
of  our  calculations  that  which  we  regard  as  most  reliable,  and 
which  at  the  same  time  gives  the  maximum  fall  to  Yellow  Creek. 
The  other  line  of  evidence,  as  far  as  it  goes,  would  make  the  prob- 
lem of  diversion  smaller  by  half  a*  least. 

One  and  one-half  miles  (I.  C.  R.  R.  survey)  southeast  of  the  I. 
C.  crossing  over  Yellow  Creek  headwaters,  is  Holcut  Station  with 
an  elevation  of  500  feet.  The  dividing  ridge  between  Yellow  Creek 
and  Mackey's  Creek,  headwaters  of  the  Tombigbee,  is  1  1-2  miles 
southeast  of  Holcut.  The  rise  from  Holcut  to  the  crest  (railroad 
track  level)  is  27  feet,  making  this  divide  at  railroad  level  527  feet 
above  sea  level.  The  railroad  crosses  the  crest  in  a  cut  50  feet 
deep,  making  the  actual  height  of  the  ridge  577  feet,  but  the  upper 
25-30  feet  is  a  narrow  rim  less  than  100  feet  across  the  top.  The 
width  of  the  dividing  ridge  at  base  is  about  400  yards. 

The  slope  on  the  southeast  side  of  the  divide  toward  the  Tom 
bigbee  is  much  steeper.  The  railroad  level  at  Paden,  3  1-2  miles 
miles  down  on  the  Tombigbee  side  o*  the  crest,  is  455  feet,  and 
the  level  of  the  water  surface  of  Mackey's  Creek  is  25  feet  lower 
than  the  railroad  track,  giving  the  creek  here  an  elevation  of 
430  feet.  Assuming  that  the  head  of  Mackey's  Creek  is  as  high  as 
the  station  at  Holcut  (and  it  is  certainly  that  high  /  the  fall  of 
Mackey's  Creek  for  the  first  3  1-2  miles  to  Paden  is  70  feet,  or  20 
feet  to  the  mile.  Supposing  the  average  fall  for  the  next  four  miles 
below  Paden  to  be  15  feet  to  the  mile — it  is  probably  more  rather 
than  less — at  that  distance  the  stream  has  reached  the  level  of 
the  Tennessee  River  at  the  mouth  of  Yellow  Creek. 

The  total  distance,  following  the  two  streams  from  the  Tennes- 
see River  to  an  equal  elevation  on  Mackey's  Creek,  is  29  miles. 

It  will  thus  be  seen  that  the  deepest  cut  would  be  through  a 
narrow  ridge  of  100-200  feet,  having  a  depth  of  208.8  feet,  the  aver- 
age depth  for  the  divide  (400  yards)  being  182  feet. 

The  material  to  be  encountered  in  cutting  a  channel  through 
the  divide  is  soft  sands  of  the  Eutaw  Formation  that  could  be 
removed  with  the  greatest  ease.  All  the  material  on  both  sides  of 
the  divide  is  of  this  nature,  as  is  also  the  material  along  the  upper 
Yellow  Creek.  On  the  lower  Yellow  Creek,  while  the  hard  cherl 
and  shale  and  limestone  appear  in  the  bordering  hills,  the  stream 
flows  through  a  broad  valley  of  alluvial  deposits,  no  hard  rock  ap- 
pearing anywhere. 


On  Mackey's  Creek,  as  far  as  cutting  would  need  to  be  done,  the 
material  is  all  loose  Cretaceous  sands  in  the  bordering  hills  and 
alluvial  deposits  in  the  valley.  We  believe  that  in  order  to  turn  the 
flood  waters  of  the  Tennessee  into  the  Tombigbee  it  would  not  be 
necessary  to  cut  through  any  hard  rock  whatsoever,  but  that  the 
material  to  be  removed  would  be  even  less  resistant  'than  much  of 
the  alluvial  deposits  of  the  Mississippi  delta. 

We  have  made  the  statement  that  though  the  lower  Yellow 
Creek  valley  is  cut  out  of  hard  rock,  it  is  our  belief  that  the  al- 
luvial deposits  of  the  creek  are  so  deep  that  no  hard  rock  would  be 
encountered  in  cutting  a  channel  to  the  level  of  the  Tennessee. 
The  reasons  for  this  belief  are  these:  1st.  The  even  flow  of  the 
stream  is  not  interrupted  anywhere  by  rapidis  or  irregularities  due 
to  outcropping  hard  beds.  2nd.  The  alluvial  flats  are  from  1  1-2 
to  3  miles  wide  and  of  fine  texture,  justifying  the  inference  that 
the  deposits  are  probably  deep.  3rd.  At  Burnsville  a  well  driven 
by  Dr.  Light  in  the  Yellow  Creek  flat — driven  wells  can  only  be 
sunk  in  soft  material — encountered  hard  rock  only  after  reaching 
a  depth  of  96  feet,  a  depth  that  would  not  be  reached  in  cutting  a 
channel  to  divert  the  excess  waters  of  the  Tennessee  across  the 
divide.  4th.  The  hard  rock  of  the  Carboniferous  that  underlies 
this  region- in  the  immediate  vicinity  of  the  Tennessee  River  dips 
toward  the  southward  and  westward  at  an  angle  of  20-30  feet  to 
the  mile.  It  forms  high  precipitous  hills  near  the  Tennesseee,  but 
passes  beneath  the  later  Cretaceous  sands  several  miles  to  the 
north  of  Burnsville,  and  is  struck  in  wells  in  the  vicinity  of  Corinth 
at  a  depth  of  450  feet,  Corinth  being  almost  on  an  east  and  west 
line  from  the  divide  between  Yellow  and  Mackey's  Creeks. 

Of  course,  the  only  certain  WLy  of  determining  whether  the 
hard  rock  would  be  encountered  in  cutting  the  diversion  channel 
would  be  to  put  down  at  frequent  intervals  along  the  course  of  the 
proposed  channel  drill  holes,  going  to  a  depth  corresponding  to  the 
bottom  of  the  channel.  Before  final  and  accurate  estimates  of  cost: 
of  this  work  could  be  made  such  borings  would  have  to  be  made, 
especially  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  Yellow  Creek  valley. 

As  regards  the  capacity  of  Yellow  and  Mackey's  Creeks  to  hold 
and  carry  the  water  to  be  diverted,  it  may  be  said  that  the  stream 
themselves  are  not  large  and  now  carry  a  rather  small  volume  of 
water,  Yellow  Creek  flows  through  a  deep  valley  100-250  feet  be- 
low the  hills  and  one  and  one-half  to  three  miles  wide  from  mouth 
to  source — in  fact,  the  valley  is  so  wide  that  on  viewing  it  from 
the  hills  as  it  sweeps  broadly  among  them,  one  is  irresistably  im- 
pressed with  the  posibility  that  it  might  have  been  once  the  course 
at  the  Tennessee  itself.  The  valley  of  Mackey's  Creek  is  less  impos- 


ing,  but  has  a  width  at  the  source  of  at  least  £50  to  400  yards, 
and  widens  to  half  a  mile  at  Paden,  less  than  four  miles  beyond  the 
divide.  It  will  thus  be  seen  that  these  valleys  could  easily  carry 
a",  the  diverted  waters  of  the  Tennessee.  A  channel  300  yards  wide 
could  carry  as  much  as  the  Tennessee  of  twice  that  breadth,  be- 
cause of  the  much  greater  fall  per  mile  through  the  diversion  chan 
nel  and  the  Tombigbee,  the  distance  being  about  one-fourth  to  the 
Gulf  and  the  fall  to  sea  level  being  the  same.  It  would,  be  un- 
necessary to  cut  a  channel  wide  enough  to  accommodate  this  vol- 
ume of  water.  A  passage  having  once  been  made,  the  velocity  of 
the  current,  once  it  is  diverted,  would  rapidly  cut  the  channel 
wider  through  the  slightly  resisting  material  of  the  divide,  until 
wide  enough  to  carry  the  desired  quantity  of  water,  after  which  it 
would  be  necessary  to  protect  the  diversion  channel  from  further 
cutting.  This,  however,  would  need  to  be  done  only  for  a  few 
miles. 

In  this  connection  it  may  ibe  well  to  state  explicitly  mat  this 
plan  does  not  contemplate  the  complete  diversion  of  the  Tennessee, 
which  would  be  undesirable,  but  merely  to  turn  its  floodwaters  in- 
to the  Tombigbee;  navigation  of  the  lower  Tennessee  would  not  be 
affected.  Such  protection  as  would  insure  this  result  would  of 
course,  be  necessary  at  the  mouth  of  Yellow  Creek.  During  low 
water  stages  the  canal  would  be  made  navigable  by  means  of  locks 

In  estimating  the  cost  of  such  a  diversion  scheme,  we  believe  it 
would  be  less  than  any  other  method  of  controlling  the  floods  on 
the  Mississippi,  and  it  would  have  the  added  benefit  of  controlling 
the  floods  of  the  lower  Ohio  from  Paducah  to  Cairo. 

The  actual  length  of  this  channel,  most  of  which  consists  of 
deepening  the  upper  Yellow  Creek  so  as  to  reverse  it&  flow,  would 
be  twenty-nine  miles.  The  actual  divide  is  less  than  one-fourth  of  a 
mile  across.  The  average  depth  of  the  cut  across  this  dividing 
ridge  (400  yards  wide)  would  be  183  feet  deep,  all  in  soft  materials, 
the  deepest  cut  would  be  208  feet.  Of  course  the  whole  twenty-nine 
miles  would  be  much  less.  We  have  estimated  the  average  depth 
to  be  sixty-seven  feet,  all  in  soft  material — so  soft  and  yielding,  in 
fact  that  it  would  melt  down  like  a  recent  sand  bar  before  a  hy- 
draulic jet.  It  would  be  merely  child's  play  for  the  machinery  now 
at  work  on  the  Panama  Canal.  We  do  not  wish  it  inferred,  how- 
ever, that  to  carry  out  this  diversion  scheme  would  be  child's  play. 
P  is  a  big  undertaking,  but  easily  within  the  bounds  of  possibility 
for  the  United  States  government.  It  is  from  its  very  nature  and  of 
necessity  a  national  undertaking.  The  control  and  improvement  of 
internal  waterways  affecting  directly  the  interests  of  several  states 
is  a  national  problem.  This  diversion  channel  would  begin  just 


within  the  state  of  Tennessee,  continue  into  Mississippi,  and  the  di- 
verted waters  would  flow  through  Alabama.  So  that  only  the  nation 
could  undertake  its  execution. 

We  have  made  a  rough  estimate,  based  upon  the  cubic  contents 
of  a  channel  twenty-nine  miles  long,  sixty-seven  feet  deep  and  300 
feet  wide,  the  removal  of  the  material  to  cost  10  cents  per  cubic 
yard,  and  find  that  the  cost  of  such  a  channel  would  be  about 
$11,000,000.  This  sum  looks  large,  but  to  engineers  whose  estimates 
of  material  to  be  handled  often  run  into  the  millions  of  cubic 
yards,  it  is  not  by  any  means  animpracticahle  expenditure,  for  ben- 
efits so  decided  to  the  whole  country  as  we  believe  would  accrue. 

It  is  extremely  probable  that  deep  cute  in  the  soft  sands  could 
l?e  worked  more  cheaply  than  indicated  in  the  figure  given  by  un- 
dercutting by  hydraulic  jets,  causing  the  high  banks  to  slump. 

Besides  the  above  figures,  certain  lands  along  Yellow  Creek,  on 
the  divide,  and  on  Meckey's  Creek  would  have  to  be  condemned  for 
the  use  of  the  canal;  but  fortunately  little  development  has  as  yet 
been  made  along  the  proposed  line,  and  land  values  are  very  low,  so 
that  this  item  of  expense  is  negligible.  However,  to  protect  lands 
on  the  Tomibigbee  from  overflow,  this  stream  would  need  to  have  a 
system  of  good  strong  levees.  This,  howeveer,  will  be  a  positive 
benefit,  will  reclaim  hundreds  of  thousands  of  acres'  of  low  lands, 
will  necessitate  a  proper  care  of  the  stream  channel,  and  will  en- 
courage and  facilitate  development  all  along  that  stream. 

The  benefits  to  accrue  from  such  a  diversion  scheme  will  be 
manifold.  Some  are  as  follows: 

First — .Such  a  volume  of  water  diverted  from  the  Mississippi  in 
flood  season,  we  believe,  will  bring  the  flood  rise  of  the  lower  Ohio 
and  the  Mississippi  within  the  danger  limit  under  the  present  sys- 
tem of  levees,  properly  strengthened  and  maintained,  and  so  perma- 
nently and  effectually  remove  the  excess  of  pressure  against  the  le- 
vees. , 

Second — The  diverging  of  these  waters  through  the  Tomibigbee 
would  necessitate  the  building  of  strong  levees  along  that  stream. 
There  are  about  1  1-4  million  acres  of  low  lands  along  the  Tombig- 
bee,  much  of  which  needs  reclaiming.  Protected  by  strong  levees 
reclamation  is  possible  and  land  values  would  rapidly  rise.  It  would 
lead  to  effective  drainage  of  lands  that  are  now  practically  useless. 

Third — Next  in  importatnce  to  the  benefit  first  mentioned — if 
indeed  not  first  in  importance  and  far-reaching  effect — is  the  one  no^s 
to  be  mentioned.  A  new  waterway,  which  by  all  means  should  be 
made  navigable  throughout  would  be  opened  up,  extending  from 


Mobile  Bay  almost  due  north  to  the  Ohio  River  at  Paducah,  Ky. 
By  glancing  at  the  map,  this  will  be  seen  to  run  almost  parallel  to 
the  Mississippi  River,  through  a  territory  rich  in  resources,  much 
of  which  awaits  development,  and  which  is  without  a  waterway  to 
the  sea — the  cheapest  transportation  in  the  world.  Such  a  water- 
way would  be  of  immense  commercial  importance,  especially  so  as 
the  Isthmian  Canal  is  now  nearing  completion,  and  all  the  outlets  on 
the  Gulf  will  enhance  in  importance.  To  facilitate  navigation  by 
barges  and  other  craft  it  would  probably  be  necessary  to  construct 
locks  which  could  be  used  in  low  water  season  and  thrown  open  dur 
ing  high  water. 

Fourth — S.uch  a  navigable  waterway  would  have  great  military 
importance,  making  it  possible  for  torpedo  boats  and  the  small  war 
craft  ito  ascend  to  the  interior  of  the  country,  and  even  to  the  Great 
Lakes  when  that  canal  is  opened.  If  would  be  of  manifest  benefit  to 
the  country  to  have  besides  the  Mississippi  another  waterway  to 
the  interior  of  the  country.  Two  would  be  less  liable  to  be  closed 
by  an  enemy  than  one. 

Fifth — Almost  surely  large  and  important  water  powers  would 
be  developed  along  the  diversion  channel  as  a  side  benefit. 

While  the  divide  separating  Yellow  Creek  and  Mackey's  Creek 
has  been  considered  in  this  plan  as  the  most  favorable  one,  others 
have  sugested  themselves.  A  narrow  divide  separates  the  western 
head  of  Yellow  Creek  from  Little  Brown  Creek.  This  route  has 
no*  been  as  yet  carefully  examined,  and  the  elevations  are  not  known 
except  approximately.  Tie  route  is  more  direct  and  shorter  by 
perhaps  two  or  three  miles  than  the  one  by  Mackey's  Creek,  and  if 
other  conditions  should  prove  as  favorable,  would  prove  the  more 
acceptable  route  of  the  two. 

The  divide  between  Bear  Creek  and  an  eastern  source  of  the) 
Tombigjbee,  I  think,  would  prove  impracticable  because  of  the 
greater  length  of  Bear  Creek  the  course  of  which  would  have  to  be 
reversed,  but  principally  because  Bear  Creek  runs  in  a  channel  of 
hard  rock  from  mouth  almost  to  source.  Either  of  the  more  wes- 
tern routes  would  be  more  practicable  because  of  the  softer  material. 

The  Geological  Survey  contemplates  at  an  early  date  putting  par 
ties  in  the  field  to  run  levels  along  these  various  divides  and  to  sur- 
vey out  the  most  feasible  route.  These  surveys  will  put  us  in  posses 
sion  of  accurate  data  with  which  the  problem  can  be  attacked  with 
certainty. 

No  attempt  will  be  made  here  to  discuss  the  feasibility  of  divert- 
ing the  Red  River  into  the  Sabine,  for  the  reason  that  at  present  my 


l 


knowledge  of  the  conditions  there  is  of  a  very  general  nature,  my 
personal  acquaintance  with  the  locality  being  limited  to  that  obtain- 
ed in  one  visit  a  good  many  years  ago,  before  I  had  given  any 
thought  to  diversion  or  other  schemes  to  relieve  flood  conditions  of 
the  Mississippi. 

A  more  detailed  examination  of  the  area  may  be  undertaken 
later  and  conditions  there  reported  upon.  In  the  mean  time,  it  seems 
probable  that  diversion  of  Red  River  could  be  accomplished  without 
great  difficulty.  The  altitude  of  the  region  is  not  great,  the  ma- 
terials probably  all  moderately  soft.  A  short  tributary  of  Red  River 
south  of  Shreveport  has  its  source  near  the  Sabine,  and  its  course  is 
made  up  largely  of  lakes,  indicating  sluggish  flow.  Most  probably 
this  could  be  made  the  route  of  a  diversion  channel.  The  benefits 
to  the  lower  parishes  of  Louisiana  following  such  a  diversion  are 
evident,  With  the  floodwaters  of  the  Tennessee  and  the  Red  Rivers 
diverted,  the  excessive  pressure  on  the  leveesi  of  the  Mississippi 
would  be  relieved,  and  those  •  parishes  would  be  safe  against  floods 
even  with  the  present  levees.  It  will  be  observed  that  by  this  diver 
sion  scheme,  where  the  danger  is  greatest — in  the  lower  parishes  of 
Louisiana — the  measure  of  relief  is  greatest. 


THIS  BOOK  IS  DUE  ON  THE  LAST  DATE 
STAMPED  BELOW 


AN  INITIAL  FINE  OF  25  CENTS 

WILL  BE  ASSESSED  FOR  FAILURE  TO  RETURN 
THIS  BOOK  ON  THE  DATE  DUE.  THE  PENALTY 
WILL  INCREASE  TO  5O  CENTS  ON  THE  FOURTH 
DAY  AND  TO  $1.OO  ON  THE  SEVENTH  DAY 
OVERDUE. 


FEB  15  103"? 


LD  21-100m-8,'34 


YC 107656 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


